Greetings Horse, Arlo, Joe, Ron, et al --
[Arlo]:
You dismiss socialization theories as wrong, as you did with Joe, but offer nothing in alternative. If you truly have nothing to say on the matter, and are indeed unconcerned with an evolutionary
.> account of consciousness, then why so adamantly denounce
social theories? And if you do denounce then, Ham, then have something to offer as an alternative.
[Horse]:
What you've described here really is an 'Oops' answer to a theory. Nice one. I'm just surprised that Platt hasn't noticed!
Gentlemen, it's not my style to be a 'hit and run' poster, and I don't think I have a reputation for "bypassing the issues" when it comes to philosophy. The reason I declined to provide a lengthy answer for Arlo was to avoid the animus and rancor that typically follows an idea which does not mesh with the MoQ. In this instance, the question revisited a 3-month-old exchange which ended with Arlo saying he had "no desire to ponder 'solipsism'."
However, as Essentialism seems to be coming up more frequently in these discussions--although mostly in the Platonian sense--and a comparison with SOM is of more than passing interest in this forum, I'll again put myself in jeopardy and try to address the problematic issue which, as Arlo has stated it, is the (essentialist) "alternative to socialization theories of consciousness."
The major difficulty I'm having, not only with Arlo but with others here, is epistemological, rather than metaphysical. Consciousness, as I see it, is not a social activity like conversing, dancing, or poker playing. It is the immanent core of individual apprehension, as inseparable from the subjective observer as his physical body. The existentialists Heidegger and Sartre referred to consciousness as "being-aware', a term I've borrowed to define the human existent. The term is consistent with the sensibility/otherness dichotomy that defines existence in my ontogeny. In fact, I view value-sensibility ('awareness' in the individual) as primary to the biological, inorganic and sociological factors of evolution (i.e., experienced reality). I maintain that experience is "effective", rather than passive. To put it simply, the individual subject "creates" the world through its experience of value.
So far this "subjective" ontogeny resembles solipsism. But keep in mind that what I've outlined above is only the "peripheral", relational mode of Essence. Awareness is dependent on Being which is an "otherness" to the self. The appearance of otherness is, in turn, a contingency of Sensibility We live in a differentiated world, and the reality we carry around in our minds is part psycho-sensory, part physical. Our knowledge of actualized reality is dimensional; that is, we all experience events incrementally (historically) in time and localized in space. Also, our awareness of experiential reality is valuistic, and the ultimate source of this value is Essence. This commonality of individual experience accounts for the universality of knowledge. In other words, we all experience the same universe, albeit from our own individuated (valuistic) perspective. So, you see, my concept of consciousness is not really solipsism, inasmuch as it has an "external' referent; namely, Essence. As a free agent of value, we each bring essential value into being from our own individual perspective, and that "being" is our common reality.
I do hope Arlo no longer feels slighted and, to the extent that this space permits, will be happy to answer any other questions that pertain to conscious awareness, creatiion, experience, or the self/other dichotomy, as defined in my philosophy.
And. thanks for the opportunity. Regards, Ham Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
